Prediction of the variation of swelling pressure and one-dimensional heave of expansive soils with respect to suction using the soil-water retention curve as a tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The one-dimensional (1-D) potential heave (or swell strain) of expansive soil is conventionally estimated using the swelling pressure and swelling index values that are determined from different types of oedometer test results. The swelling pressure of expansive soils is typically measured at saturated condition from oedometer tests. The experimental procedures of oedometer tests are cumbersome as well as time-consuming for use in conventional geotechnical engineering practice and are not capable of estimating heave under different stages of unsaturated conditions. To alleviate these limitations, semi-empirical models are proposed to predict the variation of swelling pressure of both compacted and natural expansive soils with respect to soil suction using the soil-water retention curve (SWRC) as a tool. An empirical relationship is also suggested for estimating the swelling index from plasticity index values, alleviating the need for conducting oedometer tests. The predicted swelling pressure and estimated swelling index are then used to estimate the variation of 1-D heave with respect to suction for expansive soils by modifying Fredlund’s 1983 equation. The proposed approach is validated for eight field sites from six countries — namely, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, China, USA, and UK — and on six different compacted expansive soils from USA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".